Kris Dunn wants to waterboard
candidates and as a mutual fan of 24, I say it's high time we Jack Bauer potential employees (you'll notice my Jack Bauer facts
on the right side of my RBC page).
I just don't call it asking for negative information as Kris puts it; what he's referring to is interviewing the way it's supposed to be done and it has become a lost art/science in recruiting. Yet when someone blows up in the workplace, by which I mean makes decisions that come as a surprise and have a far reaching negative impact, our tendency is to solely point an accusatory finger and the culprit or their boss (or in the case of Bank of America, their CEO and Chairman, Rick Lewis
I say we should also look at the recruiters; most simply do not conduct interviews that sufficiently drilled down to bedrock (and for fairness - and reality - I also include all those in the process). Questions are asked but how often how have you heard a recruiter claim that they felt
that the person was perfect ten minutes into the interview?
We need more data than the feelings of a recruiter - or the feelings of others in the process - to make an informed decision. But to put it as Kris did with his obvious humorous intent, doesn't help our profession. Here's an article from a technology site with many eye opening comments
(48 at the time of this post). Consider these:
The original article is what you'd expect from someone who takes their interview questions from a book and then expresses shock when interviewees read books that explain how to answer those questions.
Sometimes HR has PMS and your best bet is to just try to get through the interview as quick as possible. You are in a no win situation here.
The only reason companies still stage interviews is so HR personnel won't feel like the waste of oxygen they are.
I truly believe most of the questions you've mentioned are combative and have no place in hiring. Since we all have some negative aspects to our career growth, gaining information about situations is necessary but we do not need to undermine the candidate to do so.
That style of interviewing holds no ground in today's modern society. It might of been o.k. in the frenzy days of the 80's or 90's, but not today where realisation has ensured decency is primary.
Some of the questions in your article are harsh. I would walk out of any interview where the interviewer took such an aggressive stance and I would contact the CEO to tell him/her how their company is being represented by the interviewer. You don't have to take crap from interviewers just because you are looking for work.
Not all were negative but more or less focused on the purpose of a challenging interview:
Interviews are supposed to be a challenge; how else do you select the best candidate?
Five minutes of a modestly uncomfortable situation may preclude months or years of aggravation, disappointment, frustration, stress, and sleep-deprived nights.
While most of the comments (again from IT folks) were expected, one particular comment caused me to snicker and chortle:
I'd go one step further and encourage the candidate to ask:
How long has this position been open and what's the turn-over rate at your company?
How would you describe the current financial condition of your company?
Do you (HR person) have any actual experience in the IT field, if so, describe.
Why do you feel I need to come back "X" number of times before you make a decision?
If I take this job, what can I expect in terms of stability and longevity with your company? What's the average tenure of your employees?
What would you do if the candidate interviewed you
Jack Bauer indeed...